If France decided to change its constitution to re-introduce monarchy, they would presumably also adopt a law specifying the line of succession plus identify a new monarch, so the new monarch would be whoever the amended law says it is. I suppose your question is: Assuming that they want to make the person monarch who would be person iof the monarchy had not been abolished in the first place, i.e., who is in direct line of succession to the old royal house. That person is, of course, known; the genealogy of the House of Bourbon or the House of Bonaparte or the House of Orl'eans has not been lost in history or anything like that. That means you have to pick which family, in your hypothetical France, would be the one continuing the monarchy: Would your monarchy be a continuation of the emperors from the Bonaparte family, the last one being Napoleon III., who was deposed in 1870 and died in 1873; or the continuation of the kings from the Orléans family, the last one of which was Louis Philippe I. who abdicated in 1848 and died in 1850, or of the kings from the pre-Revolution era, the House of Bourbon, the last one of which was Henry V., who died in 1830 as king?

__________________
"The banana has certain characteristics, appearance, taste, softness, seedlessness, easy handling, a constant level of production which enable it to satisfy the constant needs of an important section of the population consisting of the very young, the old and the sick."

The claim is disputed between the Legitimiste and the Orleaniste lines. The Legitimistes claim to be the true line through direct inheritance from Charles X, who was overthrown in 1830. The Orleanistes claim their right through Louis-Philippe, who overthrew Charles X in 1830 but was himself overthrown in 1848.

There's also the Bonapartist claim, from the Napoleonic Emperors, who were overthrown in 1871.

The claim is disputed between the Legitimiste and the Orleaniste lines. The Legitimistes claim to be the true line through direct inheritance from Charles X, who was overthrown in 1830. The Orleanistes claim their right through Louis-Philippe, who overthrew Charles X in 1830 but was himself overthrown in 1848.

It's simpler than that. Or more complicated. With the death of Charles X's grandson, the comte de Chambord, in 1883, the last of the male lines from Louis XV died out. So in the eyes of many of the Legitimists, the next in line was the Orleanist claimant, the comte de Paris, and he had been recognised as such by Chambord before his death. The two obvious rival Bourbon claims therefore merged into one.

But that required accepting Philip V's renunciation of his claim to the French throne on becoming king of Spain. Some Legitimists refuse to do so and it is on that basis that they instead recognise the duc d'Anjou.

The Stuarts claim that they are not only the legitimate heirs to the British throne but also to the French throne. The current Stuart claimant is Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria Herzog von Bayern, Duke of Bavaria.

The Stuarts claim that they are not only the legitimate heirs to the British throne but also to the French throne.

But that would be on account of the English monarchs had claimed the throne of France for centuries. That claim was renounced by George III in 1801, but nothing the Georges did was legit for the Jacobites, so the English claim to France continued for as long as the Stuart pretenders did.

As far as I know, the monarchy of England has never formally renounced their claims on the French throne. They just stopped pushing it when France became a republic. If the monarchy resumed, so would the British claim.

At the moment, there's no monarchy in France. So why assume if a monarchy was re-established it would include a Salic Law?

Good point; with 3 exceptions (Spain, Monaco, & Liechtenstein) every surviving hereditary monarchy in Europe now uses equal primogeniture (ie no preference for male dynasts over female) and women's rights are pretty well enshrined in France so it's hard to imagine Salic Law would fly nowadays. Then again it's equally hard to imagine a political situation where the French would actually restore the monarchy. If that were to ever happen if might just be due to a dictator unrelated to any of the former dynasties seizing power and deciding to follow Napoléon's example.

As far as I know, the monarchy of England has never formally renounced their claims on the French throne. They just stopped pushing it when France became a republic. If the monarchy resumed, so would the British claim.

In 1800 King George the Third, that guy gave up a lot of territory, renounced his claim to the throne of France as part of the Acts of Union 1800 which united Great Britton with Ireland. France had demanded he do so during treaty negotiations in 1797. Also during brief returns of the Monarchy the British never again laid claim to the throne. I suppose they could always claim they didn't mean it but I can't see Elizabeth II claiming to be Queen of France.

The County of Vermandois was one of the last possessions of the Carolingian dynasty; it passed father-to-so as follows:Charlemagne --> Pepin IV --> Pepin V --> Herbert I --> Herbert II --> Albert I --> Herbert III --> Eudes I --> Herbert IV --> Eudes II the Insane
Vermandois was taken away from Eudes II (presumably because he was insane) and given to his sister, wife of a Capet. The insane man (Googlers: Was there some particular psychosis diagnosed?) ended up with Saint-Simon as a consolation prize.

The present-day family of Rouvroy-Saint Simon claims descent from Eudes. Since little is know about the ancestry of the 17th-century Rouvroy family, nor about the descendants of 11th-century Eudes II de Vermandois, some genealogists are suspicious that there may a flaw in the 500 years of made-up(?) names filling the gap. AFAIK the Rouvroy-Saint Simon family has never pressed any claim for the Frankish Empire.

On only slightly firmer ground is the St.Clair of Rosslyn family, made famous in a Dan Brown book/movie. Their pedigree gets fuzzy by the 14th century, but they are sometimes reckoned as agnatic descendants of Eticho (legendary common ancestor of the Houses of Hapsburg and Lorraine); or of William the Conqueror; or of Charles Martel's half-brother; or even of Clovis the Great. As you can see with a click, even Wikipedia knows little about Martel's half-brother, beyond that he had a son named Nibelung. (But if this family is connected to the mythical(?) Kings of the Nibelunglenlied, their claim to parts of France may precede that of the Merovingians. )

Good point; with 3 exceptions (Spain, Monaco, & Liechtenstein) every surviving hereditary monarchy in Europe now uses equal primogeniture (ie no preference for male dynasts over female) and women's rights are pretty well enshrined in France so it's hard to imagine Salic Law would fly nowadays. Then again it's equally hard to imagine a political situation where the French would actually restore the monarchy. If that were to ever happen if might just be due to a dictator unrelated to any of the former dynasties seizing power and deciding to follow Napoléon's example.

Hadn't Monaco decided that Caroline and her children were going to inherit after Prince Albert of Monaco, if he hadn't eventually married and reproduced? Despite the rule that Monaco would revert back to France if there was no male heir?

Hadn't Monaco decided that Caroline and her children were going to inherit after Prince Albert of Monaco, if he hadn't eventually married and reproduced? Despite the rule that Monaco would revert back to France if there was no male heir?

Monaco changed its constitution in 2002 to allow succession by the descendants of the monarch's siblings. A previous constitution limited the succession to the descendants of the reigning monarch only, which would have left the throne vacant if Albert had inherited but never reproduced.

The Monegasque rule hasn't been "male heir only" in a very long time--certainly not in the last three centuries anyway. (Louise Hippolyte was reigning princess early in the 18th century.) It's just that males are preferred and take precedence over their sisters. Caroline had been the heiress presumptive of Monaco from her birth until her brother was born the following year; had he not been born (or predeceased their father), Caroline would have inherited the throne anyway.

Hadn't Monaco decided that Caroline and her children were going to inherit after Prince Albert of Monaco, if he hadn't eventually married and reproduced? Despite the rule that Monaco would revert back to France if there was no male heir?

Yes, but that's still a male preference rule; Albert and his heirs rank before Caroline and her heirs, even though Caroline is older.

That Wikipedia article is a nice way to go down a rabbit hole for a morning; the ones that aren't "hereditary" are particularly interesting. I may start putting "Reincarnation of Jebtsundamba Khutuktu VIII, the last reigning Khan (1911–1924)" on my resume.

....On only slightly firmer ground is the St.Clair of Rosslyn family, made famous in a Dan Brown book/movie. Their pedigree gets fuzzy by the 14th century, but they are sometimes reckoned as agnatic descendants of Eticho (legendary common ancestor of the Houses of Hapsburg and Lorraine); or of William the Conqueror; or of Charles Martel's half-brother; or even of Clovis the Great. As you can see with a click, even Wikipedia knows little about Martel's half-brother, beyond that he had a son named Nibelung. (But if this family is connected to the mythical(?) Kings of the Nibelunglenlied, their claim to parts of France may precede that of the Merovingians. )

Dan Brown? Feh. He stole his badly written balderdash from Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Which is much more sophisticated & witty balderdash. But the authors presented it as non-fiction, so were unable to successfully sue Brown. They wove bits of real, fascinating history & ancient legend together in ways that did not really fit. But they kept saying "can this be"? And some of it's a Surrealist joke....

If your monarchy is around less than a single person's lifespan it's pretty brief as far as monarchies go.

France was a monarchy for most of the nineteenth century. That's not a "brief return" of monarchy. The first French Republic lasted 12 years; the second 4 years. It took about 90 years from the French Revolution for the French to establish a republic that actually endured - the Third Republic, established in 1870. Prior to that, it was more or less continuous monarchy, with a couple of republican interruptions.

I think that quote was originally applied to the immediate Restoration monarchy, under Louis XVIII and Charles X - hence the revolution of 1830. Louis Philippe obviously didn't learn enough to stave off the revolution of 1848, but he had enough to adapt the monarchy to some extent. It certainly wasn't applied to the Second (Bonaparte) Empire - though perhaps, in view of Louis Napoleon's failures in international grandstanding, it should have been.

If France decided to change its constitution to re-introduce monarchy, they would presumably also adopt a law specifying the line of succession plus identify a new monarch, so the new monarch would be whoever the amended law says it is. I suppose your question is: Assuming that they want to make the person monarch who would be person iof the monarchy had not been abolished in the first place, i.e., who is in direct line of succession to the old royal house. That person is, of course, known; the genealogy of the House of Bourbon or the House of Bonaparte or the House of Orl'eans has not been lost in history or anything like that. That means you have to pick which family, in your hypothetical France, would be the one continuing the monarchy: Would your monarchy be a continuation of the emperors from the Bonaparte family, the last one being Napoleon III., who was deposed in 1870 and died in 1873; or the continuation of the kings from the Orléans family, the last one of which was Louis Philippe I. who abdicated in 1848 and died in 1850, or of the kings from the pre-Revolution era, the House of Bourbon, the last one of which was Henry V., who died in 1830 as king?

That's news, and would have upset Disreali, who from contemporary commentary was quite pleased that Louis Napoleon, Prince Imperial, was skewered by Zulus in the 1880s thereby ending Napoleonic dynastic pretensions.

I think that quote was originally applied to the immediate Restoration monarchy, under Louis XVIII and Charles X - hence the revolution of 1830. Louis Philippe obviously didn't learn enough to stave off the revolution of 1848, but he had enough to adapt the monarchy to some extent. It certainly wasn't applied to the Second (Bonaparte) Empire - though perhaps, in view of Louis Napoleon's failures in international grandstanding, it should have been.

Yes, it's the Bourbon (on the rocks?) Talleyrand nifty.

Before posting I spent some time wondering just how pejorative the assessment is, as applied to anyone, Leo Bloom, for one. All in all it could be worse, supposing that pre-"no learning" you had some good stuff under your belt. But of course in real life, as a national shopkeeper also said about the challenge of diplomacy/politics/sentient Leo-life, there always comes "events, my dear boy, events."

At worst, maybe it's akin to that semi-jokey definition of madness where somebody holds on to an idea monomaniacally, the text or author of which I can't remember at the moment.

Before posting I spent some time wondering just how pejorative the assessment is, as applied to anyone, Leo Bloom, for one. All in all it could be worse, supposing that pre-"no learning" you had some good stuff under your belt. But of course in real life, as a national shopkeeper also said about the challenge of diplomacy/politics/sentient Leo-life, there always comes "events, my dear boy, events."

At worst, maybe it's akin to that semi-jokey definition of madness where somebody holds on to an idea monomaniacally, the text or author of which I can't remember at the moment.

I would think if France voted for the return of the monarchy that whoever was the most politically powerful person or family in France would suddenly discover their close relationship to the French crown.

ST's vBulletin 3 Responsive Styles

Our newly refreshed styles in 2017, brings the old vb3 to the new level, responsive and modern feel. It comes with 3 colors with or without sidebar, fixed sized or fluid. Default vbulletin 3 style made responsive also available in the pack.
Purchase Our Style Pack Now